TheByte

Rob

Do you really think so?

I mean, Nelson Mandela is respected internationally -- as is Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the UN; former US Secretary of State: Colin Powell; and current Secretary of state: Condoleeza Rice.

I think people will get used to to Obama very quickly -- it is crazy that his race is even an issue in 2008.

Rob

And here is a clear indication of just how pathetic the EU really is:

after years of criticizing Bush and resenting the US for assuming a leadership role, European leaders have drawn up a six-page list of demands for President Obama -- it seems the Europeans actually want the US to take the lead afterall. This is hardly surprising.


World leaders spell out demands to Obama
Manila Times6 November 2008 | 12:10 AM

PARIS: World leaders have already drawn up demands to put to US president-elect Barack Obama and quickly expressed a desire to see his promise of change applied to key conflicts and dragging the global economy out of crisis.

Presidents and prime ministers were quick to hail what French leader Nicolas Sarkozy called a brilliant victory but wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a nuclear standoff with Iran will become immediate priorities alongside the financial turmoil that has dragged much of the world into recession.

European Union foreign ministers drew up a six-page list of demands to put to Obama at a meeting in the French city of Marseille on Monday, the eve of the US election.

The letter called for a partnership of equals on key challenges from the Middle East to the finance crisis, said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner at the meeting.

Kouchner said Europe wanted increased cooperation on the Middle East, on Afghanistan and Pakistan, on relations with Russia, ties with China and other emerging powers, and for multilateral decision-making on key global issues.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the election victory is a time for a renewed commitment between Europe and the United States of America. He added: We need to change the current crisis into a new opportunity. We need a new deal for a new world.

Chinas President Hu Jintao also said it was a new historical era and added: I look forward to . . . taking our bilateral relationship of constructive cooperation to a new level.

Limited options

But experts said Obama has only limited room to make major changes in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even to the US economy.

Robin Shepherd, senior research fellow at the Chatham House institute in London, said Obama has made Afghanistan a security priority and there could be problems for Germany if he asks allies for more troops.

It would be very difficult for [Chancellor] Angela Merkel to refuse a request from somebody as popular as Barack Obama when it comes to troop levels in Afghanistan.

I think that those countries, which are already quite strongly committed in Afghanistan, would probably find a very good ally in Barack Obama and those countries such as Germany would run into problems.

Mistake in Afghanistan

Michael McKinley, senior lecturer in international relations at the Australian National University in Canberra, said Obama's commitment to boost troops in Afghanistan was a mistake.

That is going to be one of the great failures of his presidency. Anybody who goes into Afghanistan is going to lose, he said.

According to Shepherd, Obama is very ambiguous on Iraq having originally said he would pull out US troops within 16 months but changing his tune to insist that some troops have to be left there.

Shepherd said there have been similar problems on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the resurgent Russia. So I think when it comes to foreign policy in general, and Iraq in particular, its going to be very difficult in the beginning for European governments to work out exactly what Barack Obama is going to do.

Jiro Yamaguchi, politics professor at Hokkaido University in Japan, said little could be expected of Obama on the war front but that the highest expectations were on economic issues.

A 21st-century version of the New Deal is needed for America and the rest of the world. He added: I want him to do economic justice for the revival of the middleclass and fair distribution of wealth.

But McKinley at Australian National University said that it would take decades to put right damage to the structures of the domestic economy and proposed tax cuts would stop Obama implementing his reform agenda.

He is not going to have much room . . . to do anything about social programs even if he wants to. You cannot run wars and have tax cuts at the same time. Thats economic lunacy.

What Americans are going to have to live with, is that Obama is going to be one of the great disappointments in US political history, McKinley said.

Gullwing

You want him, have at. I am sure he could make up something showing he is royalty.

Race is not the only reason he was elected, but a main factor. If he was 100% white instead of 50% he would not have made it past Clinton.

Once everyone who hates Bush go away then people who are not biased will show him to be much better then most people think. Yes he has screwed up, but he has also done good.


I think that if the election was in Dec. McCain would have won. He was gaining pretty quick the last week or two. More and more things were coming out about obama. Amazing how close it was even though obama out spent McCain 10 to 1?
Once 49% of the power production in the US goes bankrupt and power prices increase huge percents people will not be happy.

Today stock market dropped another 500 points most reports I have heard say it is adjusting for obama and has been for several weeks.

I think the Republican party will clean house and be back much stronger in 2012.

Rob

The love affair the Europeans currently have with Obama won't last long if he starts putting trade barriers in their way. Obama has been critical of Bush's free trade deals. Trade restrictions will lead to more job losses in Europe.

Gullwing

At least watch the first one


what will save them

russian response

wall street

world markets

Sunny

Ah, I see some are on sour grape diet.

Anyway glad to see the republican party get thrashed. It has long become the rural religious red neck party winning elections through division and demagoguing. Add to that the corruption and incompetency of the Bush administration and it is not even a shade of what it used to be and one I actually liked. The irony is that McCain was the moderate wing of the party but he tried to have it both ways by choosing 'mrs. I can see russia' and he paid the price for it.

MikeJ

I have to say that I really don't see anything pathetic about what's in there; it seems that the EU is eager to repair the rift the Bush administration caused in the EU-USA relationship. I for one think that is a very mature approach. The "list of demands" surprises me though - not the most diplomatic way of putting things.

Gullwing

Wow democrats spend 8 years bashing everything Bush does or does not do and when a first term senator gets elected after accomplishing nothing we are suppose to just blindly fallow everything he does and think they are miracles, I don't think so. There is still tons no one knows about him and he refuses to answer. How hard is it to show your birth certificate for one?



The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

Amo

Unfortunately, I think you are right actually. And I think you are right about the parents too. I feel the younger generation in Britain are alot more tolerant towards different races - probably because we have grown up alongside them, whereas our parents haven't (not to the same degree anyway).

It will be interesting to see how America get on with their new President.

Germaniac

You talk about those who hate Bush as if they are

in the minority. Have you seen his approval

ratings in recent years? The vast majority of your

country (and indeed the world) hate your man.

Sure, he is to be recognised for the excellent work

done in attempting to combat AIDS in Africa, and

some love his tough stance on things like gay

marriage (how it is justified to impose one's own

morality on a population as diverse as America's is

beyond me)... but seriously come on now. The Iraq

war is deeply unpopular, people have been highly

critical of the loss of freedom resulting from the

"War on Terror" (ie, Guantanamo, unconstitutional

wire taps, etc), his biggest legacy... and I'm sure

you know much more than I do (that is of course if

you're willing to let your bias slide for a minute)




Hehe, this makes me chuckle....

Despite the fact around 12 per cent of

voters held to the incorrect notion that Obama is

a Muslim, despite the fact the Republican party had

embarked on one of the most vicious mud-slinging

campaigns in recent elections ("Palling around with

terrorists"), despite the fact Obama was black and

that racism is still deeply embedded in many

factions of American society, despite the fact many

consider he is terribly inexperienced... Obama

still won.

The idea that another month would have changed the

outcome is quite comical.

You talk about the fact he had more money to spend

as a bad thing, and completely unconnected to the

fact he got more votes.

How are the two mutually exclusive? The only

reason he had more money was because he received

more donations (and it follows that those who

donated, voted, right?). Even those in the McCain

camp acknowledge the fact that the Obama campaign

was nigh flawless: organised, disciplined,

effectively making use of tools like the internet

to generate "grass roots" support that the McCain

campaign simply didn't have.

The idea that Obama ran a better campaign that was

free from the divisionary and fragmented nature of

both the Hillary Clinton and McCain camps can

hardly be considered a bad thing.


I think the emboldened part of your text is most

pertinent... dude, I know we are all marred by

bias, and I most certainly am glad Obama is in the

house (though of course do not see how any one man

has the ability to bring America out of the crap it

is in)... but the reality is that what you are

reading, EVERYTHING you see is confirming your view

that Obama is evil and will undoubtedly spell doom

for America as we all know it. The fact that you

are blatantly disregarding an overwhelming

viewpoint which says Obama has the ability to bring

positive change shows you are bound by bias as much

as the rest of us...


Cling to that hope brother!